Karnataka Court July 1986 Judgments
Maratt Rubber Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1986
Reported in: 1987(3)KarLJ503; (1994)IIILLJ851Kant
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. Petitioner, M/s. Maratt Rubber Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office and factory at 6th Mile. Bannerughatta Road. It has suffered an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D. No. 24 of 1982. 2. The dispute was referred to the Tribunal on account of the dispute raised by five workmen who complained of victimisation by way of retrenchment and that the retrenchment was not in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner in this Court was the second party management before the Labour Tribunal. On the pleadings of the first party/workmen and the second party/management, two issues were framed as under; 1. Whether there was need for the second party to retrench the above workmen and the same is bona fide ? 2. Whether retrenchment is made in accordance with law? 4. The parties were asked to lead evidence and the evidence of the parties ended on both sides. After discussing the evidence led for the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Bank of India Vs. C.R. Ramalinga Gupta and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas322(Kar); ILR1986KAR3620
Venkatachaliah, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant-plaintiff, Bank of India, is directed against that part of the judgment and decree dated May 27, 1985, made in O.S. No. 11 of 1984, a suit for sale on a mortgage, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga, by which the appellant's claim for the enforcement of a covenant for compounding of interest with half yearly rests on the agricultural loan was disallowed decreeing the appellant's suit for sale on a mortgage. 2. On January 24, 1984, the appellant instituted a suit for recovery, from the respondent-defendants, of a sum of Rs. 27,002.45 said to be the principal and accrued interest on two loans of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 2,500, dated August 11, 1975, and May 15, 1976, respectively, borrowed by the first-respondent. A certain Laxman Rao, the second defendant, was the surety. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in this appeal are his legal representatives. 3. The first loan of Rs. 6,000 was stated to be a crop-loan and the second one of Rs. 2,500...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Dattatreya Desai Vs. Land Tribunal
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4067; 1987(1)KarLJ284
Rama Jois, J.1. The appellants have presented this appeal against the order of the Learned Single Judge who dismissed their Writ Petition in which they had challenged the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, Jamkhandi, by which occupancy rights in respect of certain lands had been granted in favour of Respondent-2.2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellants in this appeal it is necessary to set out the facts of the case and in particular the previous orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, They are as follows :-The proceedings concern 12 acres and 4 guntas of land situate in Savalgi village, Jamakhandi Taluk, Bijapur Dist. This land along with other lands had been given to one Rangubai belonging to the family of the appellants for maintenance by a Maintenance Deed dated 25th September 1923, There was a specific direction in the Deed that the land was regranted to the family of the donors...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayana Venkataraman Hegde Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant12; ILR1986KAR3163
Jois, J. 1. This is typical of the cases arising from a proceeding under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before a Land Tribunal which shows how an ignorant and illiterate individual has been deprived of his valuable rights to an agricultural land by clever manipulation and which has caused considerable anxiety for us. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: 1acre and 30 guntas of land in survey No. 212 of Devise Village, Sorab Taluk belonged to one Ganapathi Hegde. According to the 3rd respondent Goori Bangarappa, he was a tenant of this land for more than 15 years prior to 1-3-1974. He purchased the land from his landlord under a registered Sale Deed dated 7-6-1973. In view of this purchase though it was not necessary for him to -seek occupancy rights, before the Land Tribunal, Sorab, he made an application in form No. 7 under S. 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short Act). Claiming occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid, lance At the time of hearing of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Prof. Annaiah Gowda Vs. Chancellor, University of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR640
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing the memo dated 4-1-1985 bearing No.PS.55/A/83 84 along with statement of Article of Charges, produced as Annexure-H, issued by the Divisional Commissioner and Enquiry Authority under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He has also sought for quashing the directions issued by the 1st respondent in No DO.G.S.48 MUM/84, dated 12-6-1984 and letter of even number dated 3-7-1984, from the Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka.2. The petitioner being the Head of the Department of English, was being appointed as Examiner and Chairman of the Board of Examiners in English every year for the Postgraduate examination of the University of Mysore. During the examination held in the academic year 1983, it is alleged that certain Mal- practices are committed by him; therefore, he must be removed from the Chai...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. Government of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1767; 1986(2)KarLJ199
ORDER, 1980 - Orders of 1966 and 1975 impliedly repeated by Order of 1980 -- Order not arbitrary or without application of mind -- Order intra vires Sugar Cane Control Order and in public interest intended to secure highest yield of sugar -- Order not invalid on ground of Inability to carry on business of manufacture of khandasari sugar.(i) It is true that the 1975 Order did not specifically repeal the 1966 Order and that the 1980 Order did not specifically repeal the 1975 order. But when the later Order is on the same topic and covers all aspects relating to supply of sugar cane, the clear implication is that the earlier order stood repealed.(ii) The higher yield of sugar at sugar mills adopting hydraulic process and low yield in open pan process resorted to by the petitioners, constitute the basis for the impugned order. It cannot be agreed that the Order has been issued by the State Government under the power delegated to it under Clause 11 of the Sugar Control Order without applica...
Tag this Judgment!Muniswamy Vs. Superintendent of Police
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3447
Puttaswamy, J.1. As the questions that arise for determination In these cases are either common or inter-connected, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.2. Writ Appeals Nos. 1367 to 1369 of 1979 are filed by the appellants against the inter locator order dated 28-11-79 of Rama Jois, J. rejecting their application - I.A.No. I in Writ Petitions Nos. 18097 to 18099 of 1979 in so far as that application sought for an interim relief to the Superintendent of Police not to hold examinations to the posts of Head Constables.3. Writ Appeals Nos. 1962 and 1963 of 1984 are filed by the appellants against the order dated 20 8-1984 of Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. dismissing their Writ Petitions Nos. 13501 and 13502 of 1984 respectively since reported in I.L.R. 1985 Karnataka 3423. We will hereafter refer to the appellants in all these appeals also as petitioners. The Writ Petitions have been referred by the Learned Single Judges before whom they were posted for being heard with Writ Appeals No...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Sharma Vs. Corporaion of the City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2536
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. The Petitioner presented this Writ Petition questioning the legality of the license granted by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore for construction of a multi-storied commercial building in favour of respondent-3, on the ground that it was violative of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short).2. Facts of the case are these : (1) The property bearing Municipal No. 812/1 on the Old Taluk Cutchery Road, popularly known as O. T. C. Road, Chick pet, Bangalore City, which is the hub of commercial activity in the City of Bangalore, belongs to the Government, The lease of the land, on which a Government Primary School was being run, was granted in favour of respondent-3 by the Government by its order dated 20-12-1979. The validity of the grant of the lease itself has been the subject matter of large number of proceedings before this Court.(ii) The entire history of the case relating to the grant have been set out in greater detail in...
Tag this Judgment!Jesaraj Ghasimal Betal Vs. Ahammad HusseIn and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant75; ILR1986KAR2647
ORDER1. Both the advocates submitted that the reviser itself might be heard finally on merits. Accordingly, arguments are heard and the revision is disposed of finally.2. This is a revision against the judgment and decree dt. 25-6-1986 passed by the Civil Judge, Gadag, in R.A. No. 30 of 1986, setting aside the order dt. 5-6-1986 passed by the Munsiff, Gadag, in Ex. C. 98 of 1986, rejecting I.A. 1 filed by respondents 1 and 2 under O. 21, R. 97 of the Civil P.C.3. The present decree-holder, after a long drawn battle, obtained an order of eviction against respondent-3 Abdul Razak . Thereafter, the decree-holder, after the expiry of the time given to respondent 3. tenant to vacate, sued out execution in Execution Case No. 98 of 1986 for delivery of possession.4. The executing Court made an order for the issue of warrant for delivery of possession. At that time, respondents 1 and 2 filed an application under O. 21, Rr. 97 and 98 of the Civil P.C. That application I.A. 1 filed by respondent...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Raghuveer Vs. General Manager, Vijaya Bank
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3141; 1986(2)KarLJ268; (1987)ILLJ89Kant
Rama Jois, J.1. This writ Appeal is presented against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellant in which he questioned the legality of the acceptance of his resignation. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are as follows : The appellant was an officer on the establishment of the Vijaya Bank. On 24th February, 1983 he addressed a letter to the Management. In the said letter, after giving vent to his feelings about the injustice said to have been done to him in the matter of his conditions of service, he concluded the letter as follows : 'Now, under Rule 20(2) of the Service Regulations 1982, I hereby give the management notice of resignation of 3 months i.e. I will cease to be under Vijaya Bank's service from 25th May, 1983. Please note because of the letters from the per-Dept., I was disturbed and I had to cancel may tour programme under L.F.C. Though I extended the leave for a week as I decided to resign, on second thought, as a matter of p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »